Speaking of Virtual Cockpits

[OBIO]

This is an idea that has been bouncing around in my head for the last year or so.....it's just too bad I don't have the talent and skills to put it into action.

Build a sim model with a very very basic external model, reserving all the polys for the VC...and model it to the extreme. 50,000 poly VC with loads of detail, full size texture sheets for interior parts. Only model those external parts that can be truly seen by the pilot when he/she is sitting in his/her seat, buckled in. Like, if the pilot can open the door and see the left side fixed landing gear, model the left side landing gear, but not the right side since the pilot can not see it.

That's my idea. A super detailed, super crisp VC that is as accurate as possible in scale, detail, function. VC Extreme.

OBIO

[Daveroo]

i like that idea,,i fly the vc only..only time i even look at the outside is to check to see that my controlers are working correctly...i dont bother with repaints ect because of this,,

[stiz]

think is ... you dont need 20 billion cazillion polys and the same amount of textures to make a realistic VC cockpit .... most of the current super high poly models around now could be cut down with next to no visual difference, just another marketing gimmick really saying "high detail 20 billion poly model" in my opion :engel016:

[Roger]

I spend 90% of my flying out side in Spot view so this idea would be a non-starter for me.

[Kiwikat]

think is ... you dont need 20 billion cazillion polys and the same amount of textures to make a realistic VC cockpit .... most of the current super high poly models around now could be cut down with next to no visual difference, just another marketing gimmick really saying "high detail 20 billion poly model" in my opion :engel016:

QFT.

Developers who brag about high poly counts are usually covering up a poor texture job (many examples come to mind). It is amazing what good textures can do. The Lotus L-39 is a terrific example of less being more.

[Daveroo]

for me itsnot about poly count...but the idea of making the VC more inversive ( is that the word i want?)maybe more complete?,,,,i dont need fasteners detailed down to the depth of the screw driver slot and paint chips and have it placed on the bottom of the tail somewhere,,,,,id rather have that detail on a button or switch in my VC,,,i know there are many MANY who fly from the outside views...spot view or what ever...but all currant planes we have are made for them.....then there are the planes from (darn,,,the guy who came back after an abcence)he doesnt do VC s at all.

i think obios idea of a model with the VC as the CENTER or focus of the project,as he said model what can be seen,,like the bottom of the wing on a C172,but why bother with the top? and so.....i dont know if it all has to be drawn /complied? whatever or if a FDE can be done and the thing fly as if it has ailerons,flaps,elevators,rudder,ect even though they are not modeled,,unless visable from the VC

[middle]

That's a pretty good idea...altho I kinda like to take screenshots of the exterior of the plane. Sometimes I like to shoot what the pilot sees. I like the idea, Obio.

[Paul Domingue]

I'm going for high detail in my J2F-5 VC but also on the extireior model as well. An option of flying just the VC model is something I'm going to have to try. The high poly count I'm getting into has been a concern for me. http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/showthread.php?58025-Another-Duck

[Prowler1111]

Just 2 cents from a developer´s stand point:
If it´s for FS9, you´re going to break your nose as you stumble with the brick wall named FS9 exporter/compiler .dll, no matter how round, exact, precise a small button is, it will "weld" the vertices, not to mention, that it wont let you pass the 65k polys per model, very same reason you don´t see a RAZBAM EA-6B Prowler for FS9, there was simply NO WAY to squeeze it into the FS9 compiler, so for it, would be small poly size, immense texture work.
If it´s for FSX, it doesn´t matter if the exterior is basic and the interior a big fat mesh, FSX uses 2 different models (while FS9 uses 1)and while the poly limit is beyond practical numbers, the way you described what you want, is the way current FSX based VC´s are made.
JUST IMHO (and also a great idea)
I always wondered if there is a real market for "cockpit´s only"..(a niche inside a niche?)

Best regards

Prowler

[stiz]

Just 2 cents from a developer´s stand point:
If it´s for FS9, you´re going to break your nose as you stumble with the brick wall named FS9 exporter/compiler .dll, no matter how round, exact, precise a small button is, it will "weld" the vertices, not to mention, that it wont let you pass the 65k polys per model, very same reason you don´t see a RAZBAM EA-6B Prowler for FS9, there was simply NO WAY to squeeze it into the FS9 compiler, so for it, would be small poly size, immense texture work.
If it´s for FSX, it doesn´t matter if the exterior is basic and the interior a big fat mesh, FSX uses 2 different models (while FS9 uses 1)and while the poly limit is beyond practical numbers, the way you described what you want, is the way current FSX based VC´s are made.
JUST IMHO (and also a great idea)
I always wondered if there is a real market for "cockpit´s only"..(a niche inside a niche?)

Best regards

Prowler

there is actually a way to get around the fs9 limitations, weather its worth the hassel or not though? :icon_lol:

[n4gix]

Just 2 cents from a developer´s stand point:
If it´s for FS9, you´re going to break your nose as you stumble with the brick wall named FS9 exporter/compiler .dll, no matter how round, exact, precise a small button is, it will "weld" the vertices, not to mention, that it wont let you pass the 65k polys per model, very same reason you don´t see a RAZBAM EA-6B Prowler for FS9, there was simply NO WAY to squeeze it into the FS9 compiler, so for it, would be small poly size, immense texture work.

As Stiz stated, there is a way around the 4mm auto-weld issue with GMax/FSDS, but it does require some bit of extra effort. Likewise, the previous size limit of 65k has been shattered, the fix for which also involves a bit of extra effort.

See: FS2004 'Unlimited Export' System, Limits Shattered! (http://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/showthread.php?t=21143)

Download the tutorials here;

http://lionheartworld.net/misc/FS9_U...m_for_Gmax.pdf (http://lionheartworld.net/misc/FS9_Unlimited_Export_System_for_Gmax.pdf)
http://lionheartworld.net/misc/FS9_U...m_for_Gmax.mov (http://lionheartworld.net/misc/FS9_Unlimited_Export_System_for_Gmax.mov)

The MOV version plays in QuickTime and you click the screen to advance the pages.

[Fnerg]

This ULE method has reinvented developing models for FS9. There are no more poly limits, or 4mm welds but there may be a limit as to what your computer will process. If you create a massively detailed model in Gmax, it might remain there if your computer can't process the rendering of the model. There may also be a limit to the amount of animations one model can have. This has been my experience.

[Eoraptor1]

Daveroo,

The word you want is "immersive". Your usage is correct; you just spelled it wrong. I'm an expert on bad spelling; my own is hideous. Even with spell-check I manage to mangle the English language.

JAMES

[n4gix]

This ULE method has reinvented developing models for FS9. There are no more poly limits, or 4mm welds but there may be a limit as to what your computer will process. If you create a massively detailed model in Gmax, it might remain there if your computer can't process the rendering of the model. There may also be a limit to the amount of animations one model can have. This has been my experience.

Oh, absolutely correct, Doug! Like everything in life, the ULE method has its limits as well. It's not a free license to go crazy, but it does allow one to create highly detailed virtual cockpits that are nearly as good as their FSX counterparts...

[Daveroo]

Daveroo,

The word you want is "immersive". Your usage is correct; you just spelled it wrong. I'm an expert on bad spelling; my own is hideous. Even with spell-check I manage to mangle the English language.

JAMES

lol..thanks......i grew up in a house where my dad would say things like..."were going to LaVada" meaning nevada,and when driving along the sacramento river he would start talking about the "rip-rap" (rocks on the leevee) and he would call it riff-raff...and when he is talking to a person,a human being,,a person with feelings and emotions of theyre own,,,he will misspronouonce the name ,,the person will innocently correct him ( its thier name) and he gets mad and yells dont correct me,its not important,,,( the important part being,,never correct him)

im venting again...sorry